Model Answer

Introduction

The Indian national movement, which sought independence from British colonial rule, initially faced significant opposition from the early capitalist class in India. This group, largely concerned with protecting their economic privileges, did not initially see the benefits of India’s independence. However, by the 1940s, a noticeable shift occurred as some capitalists began supporting the movement. This change was driven by various economic, political, and social factors.

The Early Opposition of Capitalists to the National Movement

Several reasons explain why the early capitalist class opposed the Indian national movement:

• Fear of Losing Economic Privileges: British capitalists heavily invested in India’s economy, controlling vital sectors like railways, mines, and plantations. The early capitalists feared that India’s independence would lead to nationalization and the loss of these lucrative ventures.
  Example: Jamsetji Tata, founder of the Tata Group, initially supported British rule, believing that colonial governance was essential for India’s economic development.
• Desire for Political Stability: Capitalists saw British rule as a source of political stability that facilitated business growth. They feared that nationalist agitation could destabilize the existing order.
  Example: Purshottamdas Thakurdas, a prominent industrialist, supported the British crackdown on the non-cooperation movement in 1922.
• Support for Western-style Modernization: Many capitalists believed that India’s modernization could only occur under British rule and Western models. They feared that nationalist movements, especially those focused on political independence, would hinder this progress.
• Close Relationship with Colonial Authorities: Early capitalists had strong ties to the colonial government, seeing it as an ally in their business endeavors, which discouraged them from supporting the nationalist movement.

The Changing Stance in the 1940s

By the 1940s, however, the stance of the capitalist class began to change:

• Realization of Economic Opportunities: With the prospects of independence, capitalists began to recognize that the end of colonial rule could open new markets and opportunities for economic growth in an independent India.
  Example: Ardeshir Dalal, a prominent industrialist and Congress supporter, participated in the Quit India Movement in 1942.
• Necessity of Public Support: As the nationalist movement gained mass support, capitalists realized that aligning with it was essential for maintaining legitimacy among the Indian populace. Any opposition would have led to significant public backlash.
• Rising Threat from Socialist Movements: The capitalist class also feared the growing influence of socialist and communist movements, which advocated for systemic economic changes. Supporting the national movement helped them counter these rival forces and secure their own interests.
• Resentment Against British Policies: Indian capitalists were increasingly frustrated with British economic policies, such as the Ottawa Conference of 1932, which favored British industries over Indian enterprise. This resentment pushed many capitalists to reconsider their stance on independence.

Conclusion

The shift in the early capitalist class’s stance from opposition to support for the Indian national movement in the 1940s was primarily driven by economic self-interest and political necessity. While some initially supported British colonialism for its stability and economic opportunities, the evolving political landscape and growing public support for the nationalist cause led them to align with the movement. This change, motivated by both opportunism and a sense of patriotism, played a crucial role in the momentum toward India’s independence.

Model Answer

Introduction

The Quit India Movement, launched by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress on August 8, 1942, marked a pivotal moment in India’s struggle for independence. It was a bold call for the immediate withdrawal of British colonial rule, and its significance lies in its intensity, widespread participation, and its impact on British policies during and after World War II.

Intensity and Popular Mobilization

The Quit India Movement was characterized by widespread protests and civil disobedience across India. It saw a surge in mass mobilization, with millions of students, peasants, workers, and various other groups participating in protests, strikes, and processions. The movement united people across religious, caste, and class divides, highlighting a collective national consciousness. The British response was harsh, arresting over 100,000 people and using force to suppress the unrest, which, in turn, garnered more public sympathy for the movement.

Broad Societal Involvement

The movement witnessed significant participation from various sections of society. Women played a prominent role, organizing protests and protecting underground activists, with leaders like Aruna Asaf Ali and Usha Mehta emerging as key figures. This broad-based involvement showcased the movement’s national appeal and the growing impatience with British rule. Moreover, despite the arrests of Congress leaders, underground networks and parallel governance structures continued the movement, illustrating the resilience and organizational strength of the Indian populace.

Impact on British Policies

The Quit India Movement significantly altered British perspectives on India. The widespread unrest showed that British rule was no longer sustainable, especially as India was crucial to Britain’s war efforts. Revolts in the armed forces, such as the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, further strained British control. This unrest, combined with post-war economic challenges, led to the British decision to accelerate India’s independence process, ultimately contributing to the 1947 Partition and independence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Quit India Movement was a watershed moment in India’s independence struggle. Despite the brutal suppression, it galvanized the nation, laying the groundwork for the eventual end of British rule. Its mass participation, intensity, and the shift it brought in British policy underscored the power of popular movements in shaping political change.